Theif!

[janey]

hehe you people made me laugh when i read this entire thread from page 1 to whatever it is now.

In my neighborhood, at any given time you can access at least 3 wifi networks (there's one place that doesnt have any wifi...best place to be when you dont wanna be disturbed while using a laptop ) and every time i'm doing whatever on my iBook or PowerBook, sometimes i go on the wrong network. It takes me anywhere from a minute to a few days to realize, sometimes because of the bizarre IPs, the differing ISPs, the speed of the connection, AOLSystemMsg or whatever it is telling me i'm signed in twice...Nobody cares, nobody minds...we all get used to it. Sometimes we even see people warwalking! That's when the partay starts
My network is password protected usually only when there's some major data transferring going on...the password is the same as the ssid (and yes I did that on purpose).
If someone was that desperate to use my network, then hell I wouldn't mind. If they were sucking up too much bandwidth, I'd message them asking them to stop, nothing more.
In fact, I got together with my neighbors and those of us who could bridged our routers.

It's really not that important.
Sending someone a virus is not a good idea. Sometimes it can be a mistake. However, what the guy's doing doesn't seem like a mistake...maybe you should just msg him and tell him to stop. If he doesn't physically go to him and ask him to stop.
No need to think up all these bizarre tactics to bring him down.

btw, if you go to a starbucks with the tmobile hotspot thing, you can get a free day pass. So theoretically you can surf for free at your local Starbucks

 

[pdrayton]

Originally posted by tomf87
Not trying to argue, but just trying to understand the issue.... Can you tell me what part of the Constitution says the US Supreme Court trumps the FCC?

Article III Section I

But, surely you knew that, didn't you? This stuff is covered in 8th Grade. This link is to the nation's Federal Judicial system.

Federal Court System Explanation

Following that link will show you this quote: "The courts interpret the laws that Congress enacts and may declare them unconstitutional."

That's exactly what happened when FCC regulations were tried, unsuccessfully, in being applied to 2.4GHz spectrum.

As for your scanner, what spectrums is it monitoring? That may be the issue here... your scanner may be scanning "licensed" (regulated) frequencies. WiFi is unlicensed (unregulated).

 

[Makosuke]

That's some interesting information on the legalities of the use of the information in the unlicenced spectrum that WiFi uses.

That said, the fact that it's apparently completely legal to use someone's unprotected WiFi connection, does not change the potential "rightness" of doing so. And one thing all these analogies are overlooking is that, from the sound of it, the kid isn't making "no impact" use of this connection--he's sucking excessive amounts of bandwidth to the point that it's negatively affecting the guy paying the bills. He's not watching your projection TV over the fence, he's standing directly in front of you blocking your view of the screen so he can see better.

At the very least, he's being annoying. I don't see the issue with playing a bit of a prank on him (pranks, I might add, are a long tradition where I come from) so long as you eventually explain it's a prank and shut him down or get his parents to do so for you.

By the way, if I'm understanding correctly, does not the fact that anything in the WiFi spectrum is completely fair game legally give you free reign to do all sorts of nasty business to the kid's use of your internet connection, just as apparently it's legal for him to hop on it? I don't think that's any more right than what he's doing for the most part, but it's an interesting observation--the same freedom that makes him "in the right" legally makes it open season for retribution as well.

Interesting all around.

 

[pdrayton]

Originally posted by Makosuke
He's not watching your projection TV over the fence, he's standing directly in front of you blocking your view of the screen so he can see better.

Actually, he wouldn't be "blocking your view of the screen" had the owner of the TV not gone over to his house and put it in his living room. So, there goes that analogy.

As for the "rightness" of it, that is merely personal opinion. There are currently no laws that will support one's contention that it "isn't right" to tap into someone's WiFi or cordless phone. If one thinks tapping into someones WiFi is wrong, then he or she should let his elected representatives in Congress know about that.

Here's some good information that highlights why your WiFi connection can be legally tapped (cordless phones, too). This is information from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and is a warning to lawyers that conversations lawyers have with clients that are to be confidential should not be conducted on cordless phones. It also states why, and gives numerous court decisions backing that up. Basically, on the WiFi/Cordeless phone spectrum, there is no "expectation of privacy" (because it is unlicensed spectrum, listening in on a lawyer in California may be exempt from this):

"Conversations carried on over cordless phones are equally susceptible to interception by anyone within range of the handset or base transmitters. Because of this susceptibility, courts have repeatedly held in Fourth Amendment cases that there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of cordless phone conversations. See United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 171, 179 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1620 (1993); Tyler v. Berodt, 877 F.2d 705, 706-07 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1022 (1990); United States v. Carr, 805 F. Supp. at 1271; Edwards v. Bardwell, 632 F. Supp. 584, 588-89 (M.D. La.), aff'd mem., 808 F.2d 54 (5th Cir. 1986); State v. Howard, 679 P.2d 197, 206 (Kan. 1984); State v. Neisler, 635 So. 2d 433, 436 (La. Ct. App. 1994); People v. Fata, 139 Misc. 2d 979, 982-83 (Sup. Ct. Rockland Co. 1988), aff'd, 159 A.D.2d 180 (2d Dep't), leave to appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 985 (1990); State v. Bidinost, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 3097, at 23-25 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993); State v. Smith, 438 N.W.2d 571, 577-78 (Wis. 1989). We note, in this regard, that California recently enacted legislation providing that attorney-client communications do not lose their privileged character simply because they are conducted on a cellular or cordless telephone. 1994 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 186 (Deering) (amending Cal. Evid. Code § 952)."

The full information can be accessed here: Association of the Bar - New York City

Although these cases dealt with cordless phones, the reason they are considered not to provide "an expectation of privacy" is because the spectrum on which they broadcast is unlicensed and unregulated... the exact same spectrum as WiFi.

 

[mvc]

Originally posted by saabmp3
If you havn't protected connection then you shoudl be punishing yourself, not the other way around. Seriously, it's not stealing if it's readibly avaible.

BEN

Hey, why you try that theory out at a jewellery shop, they just leave the stuff lying around sometimes, so its "readibly avaible"

Its still stealing, they just call it theft instead of burglary.

 

[tomf87]

-prdayton

No, I've been much of a political/history type myself. I've never fully read the Constitution, just got the basic points. I went to a small country school; my graduating class was 59!

Good points you point out though. My scanner does cover all of the standard frequencies and 800 Mhz. I know the older cordless run on 24-30 Mhz, so that's probably why it states that warning.

Thanks for the info, and hope you didn't take me wrong!

Cheers!

Tom

 

[pdrayton]

Originally posted by tomf87
Thanks for the info, and hope you didn't take me wrong!

Absolutely not

I knew my statements were sound, but realized corroborating information was lacking. Fortunately I found the stuff I posted above. I learned some new stuff, too!

Have fun, and secure that wireless network!